INL researchers have proposed prototypes for future lightweight armor systems that reside in a technology gap between explosive reactive armor and passive armor. The targets were designed to react under impact and throw a steel front plate into the path of the projectile, forcing the projectile to engage more of the front plate during its penetration process. These prototypes are intended to exhibit the enhanced efficiency of explosive reactive armor without the collateral damage often associated with explosive reactive armor. One of the prototype systems, Semi Energetic Reactive Armor (SERA), functions similarly to explosive reactive armor, but features a reactive material that reacts much slower than explosive reactive armor. Two different SERA test groups were built and featuring different ratios of aluminum Teflon(copyright) powders pressed into 0.5 in. thick energetic tiles and sandwiched between 0.25 in. thick RHA plates. The other prototype system, Non Energetic Reactive Armor (NERA), utilizes the strain energy in compressed rubber to launch a front flyer plate into the path of an incoming projectile. It is comprised of a 1 in. thick rubber layer sandwiched between two 0.25 in. thick RHA plates with bolt holes around the perimeter. Bolts are inserted through the entire target and tightened to compress the rubber sheet to significant strain levels (approximately 40%). A fourth group of targets was tested as a control group. It featured a 0.5 in. thick rubber sheet sandwiched between two 0.25 in. thick RHA plates, similar to the NERA test articles, but the rubber is uncompressed. The four test groups (uncompressed rubber, compressed rubber, 70/30 Al/PTFE, 50/50 Al/PTFE) were each fabricated with three identical test articles in each group. All twelve targets were subjected to ballistic testing at the National Security Test Range on July 17, 2013. They were tested with 0.5 in. diameter steel rods shot at a consistent velocity at each target. In order to characterize the energetic materials, break wires were embedded in the targets and burn velocities were measured. The residual mass method was used to compare the target performance of each group and final performance data is presented below.